MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1979901113 · doi:10.1139/cgj-2014-0237

Scaling law of static liquefaction mechanism in geocentrifuge and corresponding hydromechanical characterization of an unsaturated silty sand having a viscous pore fluid

2014· article· en· W1979901113 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Amin Askarinejad, Alexander Beck, Sarah M. Springman

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geotechnical Journal · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicLandslides and related hazards
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPore water pressureGeotechnical engineeringLiquefactionCentrifugeLandslideGeologyScalingDissipationViscous liquidMechanicsThermodynamicsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Fast landslides induced by rainfall impose considerable damage on infrastructure and cause major casualties worldwide. Static liquefaction is one of the triggering mechanisms mentioned frequently in the literature as a cause of this type of landslide. The scaling laws required to model this mechanism in the geotechnical centrifuge are developed, and it is shown that either a reduction in the soil pore size or use of a viscous pore fluid is needed to unify the time scaling factors of contractive volume change of the saturated voids and dissipation of the excess pore pressure generated. The latter option was used in this research; therefore, the influences of the viscous pore fluid on the hydromechanical characteristics of a silty sand were investigated. Subsequently, geocentrifuge tests were conducted to compare the behaviour of a slope having a viscous solution as the pore fluid with that of a model with water as the pore fluid. Both slopes were subjected to rainfall, and the evolution of the pore pressure and surface movements were monitored.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.005
GPT teacher head0.203
Teacher spread0.198 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations44
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Geotechnical JournalSame topicLandslides and related hazardsFrench-language works237,207